The Beautiful Story of Logo
Papert (1980) Mindstorms:
Children, computers, and powerful
How to approach the topic
Learning by design
“learning without curriculum”
Effects WITH versus effect OF (Soloman,
Perkin & Gloverson)
Logo provides nurturing environment for
Logo increases student delight in
Logo allows students to create
microworlds for studying math and
What is Logo?
Capable of recursion and structured
programming (modular or procedural).
» Contrast with object-oriented
Turtle graphics embedded.
Usable by pre-school to college.
The story unfolds: Teachers
adopt Logo, believing...
Logo will promote math problem
Logo makes students more interested.
Logo will improve math & science test
Discovery WITH Logo vs effects OF
learning the Logo language.
Teaching WITH Logo vs. teaching
Over-scaffolding learning vs. allowing
discovery and “subversive learning.”
Controlled research studies of Logo
Teach a student Logo…. See if they are
better problem solvers or score higher
on math tests.
The problem (revisited)
When done near MIT.. It works.
When done elsewhere.. Not so much.
The answer (part #2)
Papert rejects research as
Paper argues the DVs should be about
the “culture of learning” not about
The problem (anew)
Educators attack Papert and reject Logo
as just programming.
Important philosophical and measurement
concerns go unaddressed.
The answer (Part #3)
Lego to the rescue.
Robot programming with Logo-like language.
40-minute, bite-sized units created for
Lego simplifies and reduces the Logo
Language. (accommodating education)
Teacher easily integrate the lessons into their
The problem (again)
Logo pulls out saying the materials do
not promote the kind of learning Logo
was designed for.
Issues of philosophy and measurement